The making of a revolution

[Facetious]

Report warns of rise of right-wing extremists.

In a report made public today, the Department of Homeland Security warns that the recession and the election of President Obama are "fueling resurgence" of right-wing extremist groups that are seeking new recruits, especially returning veterans.

The intelligence assessment suggests that veterans make attractive recruits because of "combat skills and experience" that could boost the "violent capabilities" of radical right groups. Further, it says that any possible new restrictions on gun ownership, combined with vets' trouble reintegrating into their communities during a bad economy, "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

"The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement," the report states.

But DHS "has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," spokeswoman Sara Kuban told Fox News. The assessment was issued last week to law enforcement. A similar assessment on left-wing groups was issued earlier in the year.

How does DHS define "right-wing extremism'? It writes that it "can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

The report has lit up the blogosphere.

One prominent right-wing blogger calls the report a "hit job on conservatives." Others denounce it as "execrable" and "a blatant propaganda effort designed to characterize conservatives as racist, anti-American, dangerous extremists".

McPaper Report


....."the intellegence assessment suggests . . . "

"that could boost the violent capabilities of . . ."


"could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent . . ."

"The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans"

How do they know beyond a reasonable doubt that "extremist right wingers" are the ones "stockpiling weapons and ammo" and what difference would it make if it's done in accordance to the law?

 

[calpoon]

oh, I just posted this article. I didn't know that it had already been put on here, what with the fine spin job you put on it.

Only you could read into that as demonizing freedom fighters. (well not just you, there's three or four other people that regularly spew such gibberish.)

 

[Jagger69]

How do they know beyond a reasonable doubt that "extremist right wingers" are the ones "stockpiling weapons and ammo" and what difference would it make if it's done in accordance to the law?

They don't. There's nothing "revolutionary" about this. So-called "extreme right-wing" groups have been prolific in recent decades no matter who the occupant of the White House happens to be. Rather than calling them right-wing (or left-wing for that matter), they should be referred to as being anti-establishment and/or anti-government as far as their core beliefs are concerned. David Koresh? Randy Weaver? Timothy McVeigh? Ted Kaczynski? Do these types represent a particular political leaning either right or left in lieu of simply being anti-establishment or anti-government? I don't think so.

It is not incumbent to absolutely be a right or left winger in order to despise and eschew authoritarian plutocracy that infringes on perceived personal rights and freedoms to the point where the situation becomes intolerable (at least as far as the individual's perspective is concerned). There were plenty of these groups that experienced significant growth and popularity during the Bush administration and were basically indistinguishable from those that proliferated during the Clinton administration. Labels that pigeonhole these groups into some particular political philosophical niche may be convenient from a compartmentalization standpoint for the public at large, but the primordial motivation for such anti-establishment beliefs and manifestations in behavior transcend such easily-applied and defined monikers. It's much more complex than that but those who so easily rationalize such behaviors as those of the "other" side find some sort of bizarre comfort and self-aggrandizement in the supposed proprietary knowledge that at least they aren't representative of "their" political philosophy and therefore they are somehow exonerated from any guilt-by-association when, if fact, the opposite is quite likely to be true.

The Weathermen from the 1960s are a perfect example of this phenomenon. While the establishment at the time chose to label them as left-wing extremists, they actually had more in common with the survivalist and anti-government extremists of recent years who have consistently been labeled as right-wing extremists by the press and the public in general. It's a very disturbing trend and one that contributes mightily to the burgeoning polarization of American society that has and continues to be such a destructive force that only serves to undermine the very foundation of the "United" States of America.

 

[neighborboy]

They don't. There's nothing "revolutionary" about this. So-called "extreme right-wing" groups have been prolific in recent decades no matter who the occupant of the White House happens to be. Rather than calling them right-wing (or left-wing for that matter), they should be referred to as being anti-establishment and/or anti-government as far as their core beliefs are concerned. David Koresh? Randy Weaver? Timothy McVeigh? Ted Kaczynski? Do these types represent a particular political leaning either right or left in lieu of simply being anti-establishment or anti-government? I don't think so.

It is not incumbent to absolutely be a right or left winger in order to despise and eschew authoritarian plutocracy that infringes on perceived personal rights and freedoms to the point where the situation becomes intolerable (at least as far as the individual's perspective is concerned). There were plenty of these groups that experienced significant growth and popularity during the Bush administration and were basically indistinguishable from those that proliferated during the Clinton administration. Labels that pigeonhole these groups into some particular political philosophical niche may be convenient from a compartmentalization standpoint for the public at large, but the primordial motivation for such anti-establishment beliefs and manifestations in behavior transcend such easily-applied and defined monikers. It's much more complex than that but those who so easily rationalize such behaviors as those of the "other" side find some sort of bizarre comfort and self-aggrandizement in the supposed proprietary knowledge that at least they aren't representative of "their" political philosophy and therefore they are somehow exonerated from any guilt-by-association when, if fact, the opposite is quite likely to be true.

The Weathermen from the 1960s are a perfect example of this phenomenon. While the establishment at the time chose to label them as left-wing extremists, they actually had more in common with the survivalist and anti-government extremists of recent years who have consistently been labeled as right-wing extremists by the press and the public in general. It's a very disturbing trend and one that contributes mightily to the burgeoning polarization of American society that has and continues to be such a destructive force that only serves to undermine the very foundation of the "United" States of America.

The Weathermen explicitly saw themselves as a Leninist vanguard, so I'd have serious trouble lumping them in with McVeigh and company. And I think if you asked any of the surviving members if they were left or right wing, I think they'd pretty quickly say they were left wing, based on the documentary I watched on them. If you haven't seen the Weather Underground, I highly recommend it, fascinating movie.

 

[Jagger69]

The Weathermen explicitly saw themselves as a Leninist vanguard, so I'd have serious trouble lumping them in with McVeigh and company. And I think if you asked any of the surviving members if they were left or right wing, I think they'd pretty quickly say they were left wing, based on the documentary I watched on them. If you haven't seen the Weather Underground, I highly recommend it, fascinating movie.

You're missing my point. Whether the label is "left wing" or "right wing", these groups all seem to have a unifying core that wavers very little....anti-government and anti-establishment philosophy and agenda. How they see themselves and what they truly represent can easily be two different things. Just like the old argument about Hitler and Stalin....was one "right-wing" and the other "left-wing"? Certainly there are earmarks that would lead one to believe one way or the other when, in the final analysis, they both represented totalitatian, nationalistic and imperialist dictatorships. As the old Chinese proverb so wisely maintains...."There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same".

 

[Philbert]

They don't. There's nothing "revolutionary" about this. So-called "extreme right-wing" groups have been prolific in recent decades no matter who the occupant of the White House happens to be. Rather than calling them right-wing (or left-wing for that matter), they should be referred to as being anti-establishment and/or anti-government as far as their core beliefs are concerned. David Koresh? Randy Weaver? Timothy McVeigh? Ted Kaczynski? Do these types represent a particular political leaning either right or left in lieu of simply being anti-establishment or anti-government? I don't think so.

It is not incumbent to absolutely be a right or left winger in order to despise and eschew authoritarian plutocracy that infringes on perceived personal rights and freedoms to the point where the situation becomes intolerable (at least as far as the individual's perspective is concerned). There were plenty of these groups that experienced significant growth and popularity during the Bush administration and were basically indistinguishable from those that proliferated during the Clinton administration. Labels that pigeonhole these groups into some particular political philosophical niche may be convenient from a compartmentalization standpoint for the public at large, but the primordial motivation for such anti-establishment beliefs and manifestations in behavior transcend such easily-applied and defined monikers. It's much more complex than that but those who so easily rationalize such behaviors as those of the "other" side find some sort of bizarre comfort and self-aggrandizement in the supposed proprietary knowledge that at least they aren't representative of "their" political philosophy and therefore they are somehow exonerated from any guilt-by-association when, if fact, the opposite is quite likely to be true.

The Weathermen from the 1960s are a perfect example of this phenomenon. While the establishment at the time chose to label them as left-wing extremists, they actually had more in common with the survivalist and anti-government extremists of recent years who have consistently been labeled as right-wing extremists by the press and the public in general. It's a very disturbing trend and one that contributes mightily to the burgeoning polarization of American society that has and continues to be such a destructive force that only serves to undermine the very foundation of the "United" States of America.

Yep, that's about it...

Now, I would appreciate your continuing in your usual homogeneous Left-leaning Obama-supporting philosophy and stop posting clear concise intelligent diatribes on the actual facts.

It's disturbing when someone moves outside their pigeonhole. Please stop it!:nono:

:rofl:

 

[neighborboy]

You're missing my point. Whether the label is "left wing" or "right wing", these groups all seem to have a unifying core that wavers very little....anti-government and anti-establishment philosophy and agenda. How they see themselves and what they truly represent can easily be two different things. Just like the old argument about Hitler and Stalin....was one "right-wing" and the other "left-wing"? Certainly there are earmarks that would lead one to believe one way or the other when, in the final analysis, they both represented totalitatian, nationalistic and imperialist dictatorships. As the old Chinese proverb so wisely maintains...."There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same".

Part of your point was that the "establishment" purposefully mislabeled them left wing revolutionaries. I'm just pointing out that they labeled themselves left wing revolutionaries.

 

[titsrock]

Someone "fax" this report to Tom Clancy. I smell the makings of a new Jack Ryan novel...

 

[Torre82]

I'll be asleep in the other room. Wake me when the revolution starts, I have POPcorn!

 

[BlueBalls]

What? I have obsessive compulsive disorder!!!!

 

[Facetious]

Welcome home troops !

You are now on the extreme right wing, domestic terrorist watch lists.
How do you shell shocked goons expect to cope with society ?

How about that Obama, HUH ? The FIRST BLACK PREZ. What do you think about that . . . HUH ?

So, you're a killer now, huh ? Well, that's not the way we do things here so don't get any ideas !

I wouldn't be goin out and buying a gun, soldier !

Don't be joining up with any like minded pro American, assault rifle totin, right wingers now, SOLDIER !

No Tea Parties for you, soldier ! Don't go there ! no no no !

 

[Philbert]

I tried to panhandle enough money in the 70s to get some weapons, so I could join the "Revolution", but I guess I missed the whole thing; and anyway, I had more fun with the drugs I bought than I would have with any weapons.
This is great...I have another chance to join the "Revolution" (V.09)...and I don't need to buy any drugs this time!
:ak47::violent:

Let me know when the Revolution begins!:mail:

 

[tiger1977]

So I guess the left-wing radicals are now nonexistent? Oh well, this was to be expected, so it's no surprise. 20 January 2013 cannot get here fast enough.

 

[Jagger69]

Yep, that's about it...

Now, I would appreciate your continuing in your usual homogeneous Left-leaning Obama-supporting philosophy and stop posting clear concise intelligent diatribes on the actual facts.

It's disturbing when someone moves outside their pigeonhole. Please stop it!:nono:

:rofl:

I'm assuming this comment is tongue-in-cheek, Philby....otherwise, you'd make an incredibly easy target for consistently posting your usual Limbaugh-lockstep dittohead rantings while you hunker down deep inside your little right-wing pigeonhole. I'll feel a whole lot better when i see a similarly unbiased post from you but until then you better not throw too many stones in that glass house over there.....:1orglaugh

 

[Jagger69]

Part of your point was that the "establishment" purposefully mislabeled them left wing revolutionaries. I'm just pointing out that they labeled themselves left wing revolutionaries.

Point well taken. :thumbsup:

 

[Philbert]

I'm assuming this comment is tongue-in-cheek, Philby....otherwise, you'd make an incredibly easy target for consistently posting your usual Limbaugh-lockstep dittohead rantings while you hunker down deep inside your little right-wing pigeonhole. I'll feel a whole lot better when i see a similarly unbiased post from you but until then you better not throw too many stones in that glass house over there.....:1orglaugh

I guess I was too subtle for you...should I take back the + rep I gave you? (And the POTW nom I see I wasted):moon:

As for the Limbaugh lockstep rant...WTF?
I've posted both pro Abortion rights and pro Stem Cell research posts, among many opinions that weren't the Right's or Rush's.
I'm practical and experienced, with a twist to the center. I've never claimed Rush follower creds, and you can't give them to me.
I've never voted Republican, and to my shame I did vote for Big Al.

You wanna take your best shot...go ahead; show me the glass house I live in.

 

[Jagger69]

I guess I was too subtle for you...should I take back the + rep I gave you? (And the POTW nom I see I wasted):moon:

As for the Limbaugh lockstep rant...WTF?
I've posted both pro Abortion rights and pro Stem Cell research posts, among many opinions that weren't the Right's or Rush's.
I'm practical and experienced, with a twist to the center. I've never claimed Rush follower creds, and you can't give them to me.
I've never voted Republican, and to my shame I did vote for Big Al.

You wanna take your best shot...go ahead; show me the glass house I live in.

Dude....you can dish out the sarcasm but can't take it? C'mon....I was just shoveling it back at you. Lighten up pal! Didn't mean to offend you....maybe I was too subtle for you? :dunno:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Our country is full of too many stupid, uninformed, thoughtless and lazy people for a revolution to happen.

 

[meesterperfect]

I hate when two of my friends aren't getting along.

I already posted on calpoons thread about this thing.

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=3129249#post3129249

Like I said, its just the democratic party covering its ass if the future under Obama is shittier than it is now.
And to warn against current/recent veterans becoming racist "right wing" radicals is unfair, counter productive, wrong, disgusting, treasonous and much more.


This is the democratic partys way of trying to prevent the people from going republican, by labeling them "right wing racist extremists" if they disagree with Obamas actions and intentions.
They see its already happening, and they will do whatever it takes to stop it.
because..............they want the power for a long time.

 

[meesterperfect]

Our country is full of too many stupid, uninformed, thoughtless and lazy people for a revolution to happen.

quote of the week?